I would think the underlying reason is that the EDI converter always generates output in UTF-8 format (converting from the proper EDI message format). XML documents with no PI are assumed to be UTF-8 encoded.

But I tend to agree with you; it would be a cleaner approach to output the PI even if we know the output is always UTF-8.

>2. In addition, is there a way to associate a schema with the Output XML ?

You mean automatically creating a schema for the XML format of the EDI message (like the File > Document Wizard... > X12/EDIFACT to XML Schema wizards do), and automatically adding a reference to it in the generated XML?
No, we don't support that capability; you can clearly do that from inside Stylus Studio in a couple of steps, but to achieve that from the API we would have to add a couple of methods to let you create and assign the schema automatically.

I'm filing change requests about both topics, as they both sound like good points. #1 is a nuisance, and can be addressed very quickly; #2 will require a bit more of thinking.

XML doesn't require the utf-8 bom to be present; missing any other information, the encoding is utf-8. So, it is utf-8.

>#2 would be real nice. Then it would be possible to get the
>XML output and pass it back into a parser/validator to
>validate whether or not the output is good or bad.

That pass should be unnecessary if you set the validation flag to true in the adapter:EDI URL (you can see it better from inside Stylus Studio).

Still, I can see value in associating the output to the schema explicitly.

>and #3 :) not a real hard requirement, but what about xmlns support?

Can you elaborate on this? What kind of support would you like to see? Would you like being to instruct the converter to generate the output using a specific default namespace? Or using a specific prefix associated to a namespace URI? Would you like to be able to control the namespace URI? What about the prefix?

>>#2 would be real nice.
>Then it would be possible to
>get the
>>XML output and pass it
>back into a parser/validator
>to
>>validate whether or not
>the output is good or bad.
>
>That pass should be
>unnecessary if you set the
>validation flag to true in the
>adapter:EDI URL (you can see
>it better from inside Stylus
>Studio).
>
>Still, I can see value in
>associating the output to the
>schema explicitly.

It's definitely very useful, especially if you have to send the output to another system which would like to validate the XML.
>
>>and #3 :) not a real hard
>requirement, but what about
>xmlns support?
>
>Can you elaborate on this?
>What kind of support would you
>like to see? Would you like
>being to instruct the
>converter to generate the
>output using a specific
>default namespace? Or using a
>specific prefix associated to
>a namespace URI? Would you
>like to be able to control the
>namespace URI? What about the
>prefix?

Being able to tell the adapter to which prefix and uri to use would be great. if having both is not possible, then it think i'd rather be able to specify a URI.
>
>Thanks,
>Minollo

Actually, come to think of it. If you implement #1 without #2 , that's probably even worse.

Currently, via the API layer, the caller controls the creation of output stream. We can pre-insert the prolog and necessary doctype.
prior to handing th stream to the adapter.

If you implement #1 without #2, that makes it even more difficult to
implement the XSD/DocType work around.

Thanks much.

Toadie

>>1. In the samples,
>(demo.java) when converting a
>CSV to XML, the XML Output has
>>a prolog that declares the
>encoding
>>
>><?xml version="1.0"
>encoding="utf-8"?>
>>
>>I have changed the sample
>to do EDI X12 to XML by
>>
>>FileInputStream fis = new
>>FileInputStream(
>"./831.x12");
>>StylusFile in_1 =
>sff.createStylusFile("adapter:
>EDI:newline=crlf:val=yes:decod
>e=yes:field=yes:len=no:seg=yes
>:tbl=yes:typ=yes:opt=no:eol=ye
>s", fis);
>>
>>The output XML for EDI
>doesn't contain prolog? Why?
>
>I would think the underlying
>reason is that the EDI
>converter always generates
>output in UTF-8 format
>(converting from the proper
>EDI message format). XML
>documents with no PI are
>assumed to be UTF-8 encoded.
>
>But I tend to agree with you;
>it would be a cleaner approach
>to output the PI even if we
>know the output is always
>UTF-8.
>
>>2. In addition, is there a
>way to associate a schema with
>the Output XML ?
>
>You mean automatically
>creating a schema for the XML
>format of the EDI message
>(like the File > Document
>Wizard... > X12/EDIFACT to
>XML Schema wizards do), and
>automatically adding a
>reference to it in the
>generated XML?
>No, we don't support that
>capability; you can clearly do
>that from inside Stylus Studio
>in a couple of steps, but to
>achieve that from the API we
>would have to add a couple of
>methods to let you create and
>assign the schema
>automatically.
>
>I'm filing change requests
>about both topics, as they
>both sound like good points.
>#1 is a nuisance, and can be
>addressed very quickly; #2
>will require a bit more of
>thinking.
>
>Thanks,
>Minollo